I'm kind of curious what is to happen with the Denver and Boulder schools that are under the Soards at this point.
Are they done?
Are they going to sell their schools to someone else in the SD group under The'?

I'm kind of curious what is to happen with the Denver and Boulder schools that are under the Soards at this point.
Are they done?

They own those two schools unless, something recently happened that I don't know about.

Colorado springs is the school owned by another instructor.

Are they going to sell their schools to someone else in the SD group under The'?

I don't see why. This whole issue is about control of the business model. If they sell their schools, they will receive no profit from anything in the future. They have to play damage control by,control, removing any "trouble makers" from the art, make the nine other schools look bad, and start establishing other markets.

They are nearing their sixties, it is going to be hard to try and establish a new career at this point.

Of those I have been hearing that a couple of them are looking at possible instructor changes in the near future for various reasons aside from the recent case against David Soard.

Originally Posted by It is Fake

I don't see why. This whole issue is about control of the business model. If they sell their schools, they will receive no profit from anything in the future. They have to play damage control by,control, removing any "trouble makers" from the art, make the nine other schools look bad, and start establishing other markets.

To clarify, it is about control to the Soards, to the break away schools it is more about being associated with the Soards. Although admittedly this was likely the straw that broke the camel's back as there have definitely been instructors that have not liked the level of control the Soards like to try to exert on the schools. That is not a new issue though, and has been exemplified prior to the recent case by schools breaking away. Examples of this include the case of the San Jose school run by the Diep's breaking off and running under a new name (http://www.cwkungfu.com/), as well as instructors just dropping their schools (such as Associate Master Jason Car leaving the Los Angeles School which was then taken over by Dean Ash).

There have obviously been other examples of instructors leaving or getting pushed out as has been mentioned in other threads. These are just two more recent examples (they both occurred in fall of 2007) that I haven't seen listed yet and happened just before the charges were brought against David Soard.

However with the nine schools breaking away, there is no level of control between any of those schools. There is a alliance or association to allow students to train at each location when traveling, and attend out of town festivals (paying that local school), but not any sort of ringleader who is gaining added control from the Soards.

With the recent letter from GM The', it could be that Elder Master Garry Mullins and Senior Master Gary Grooms gain influence, but they got involved after the schools broke away. So far, all indications are that their motives are to try to restore some peace and stability under GM The' and keep the art from fracturing more.

I haven't myself met either of them yet, but look forward to doing so in the near future.

You need to try a different word. You aren't clarifying my point. You are adding your opinion. To me, it is a control issue of "their" business model. The association is a different issue altogether IMO.

You need to try a different word. You aren't clarifying my point. You are adding your opinion. To me, it is a control issue of "their" business model. The association is a different issue altogether IMO.

I agree that there are two issues here. That was pretty much my point. On one side it is about control of the business model, and on the other the moral issue of being associated with and supporting someone exhibiting this sort of behavior. If control was the only issue, then the disassociation of the nine schools would likely not have happened. Control issues have been prevalent before and not had this sort of outcry.

The disassociation is a result of the recent charges and subsequent trial involving David Soard. If not for that issue the students and instructors would probably have been much more split on breaking from the Soards if it even came up that way at all. In the past few years they have several times adjusted aspects of how business was run including rate increases, standardized pricing, class time changes, required attendance of lower belt festivals on a yearly basis, etc. Those sorts of business issues may not have been popular, but have not resulted in the sort of mass departure that this issue has.

The point I was trying to clarify (and obviously didn't do well :tongue8: ) was that the disassociation was not motivated for purposes of control. It was instead a result of the charges, case, and perceived and possible threat that David Soard presents, as well as the moral stance that they do not wish to be associated with an individual of this nature. I say this not purely as a matter of opinion, but based on conversations I have had with several of the involved instructors.

My reason for trying to clarify cause and effect here is that I have seen it suggested elsewhere (such as the original daily camera article) that the separation of the nine schools was for purely financial and business reasons. However looking at the risk the schools have taken, the financial risk of this course of action was significant. If GM The' had stayed with the stance of revoking their right to teach the art and pursued legal action (as threatened in his first letter to the Phoenix School)they would have had to go to court to defend their right to remain in business teaching the art, and if the courts didn't side with them they could potentially loose their business. That is not a risk that a business person would take lightly, and to suggest this sort of motivation is to my thinking a way of diminishing the importance of why the stance was taken.

Originally Posted by It is Fake

The business model was set up without input from GMT.

No question on that. The pyramid nature of the CSC business model to date is definitely something the Soards came up with.

My reason for trying to clarify cause and effect here is that I have seen it suggested elsewhere (such as the original daily camera article) that the separation of the nine schools was for purely financial and business reasons. However looking at the risk the schools have taken, the financial risk of this course of action was significant. If GM The' had stayed with the stance of revoking their right to teach the art and pursued legal action (as threatened in his first letter to the Phoenix School)they would have had to go to court to defend their right to remain in business teaching the art, and if the courts didn't side with them they could potentially loose their business. That is not a risk that a business person would take lightly, and to suggest this sort of motivation is to my thinking a way of diminishing the importance of why the stance was taken.

I disagree, it is a financial issue but, not in the sense that is portrayed.

I disagree, it is a financial issue but, not in the sense that is portrayed.

I can certainly see where it could be seen that way for some of the schools. For those schools directly involved in filing complaints and pressing charges though, that would be a unfair characterization IMO. Recognizing of course that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I don't see that anyone would want to continue a business relationship with someone that had harassed or otherwise abused them. I've certainly dropped clients for much lesser grievances than this, some of them for business reasons, but some also for ethical reasons. Those I have dropped for business reasons I could reconsider the relationship if there were enough incentive, but those that I dropped for moral reasons? No, not going to happen.

The dissociation letter unfortunately, IMHO, does not draw a clear line as to what the motivating factor was in taking that step for the schools. As such it leaves it open to the interpretation that business concerns were the primary motivating factor. It is certainly possible that that is the case as the letter left it open to that interpretation, but given what I know of the various instructors I would hope that the moral reasons for taking these actions would be a larger factor.

Everything culminates in a huge clusterfuck. I'm not lending weight to either of the issues being more or less.

I disagree, it is a financial issue but, not in the sense that is portrayed.

Originally Posted by you

that the separation of the nine schools was for purely financial and business reasons.

I clearly stated that not for the reasons portrayed but, it is still a reason for the separation. You are adding your bias and making much more out of my statement.
I didn't mis-characterize anyone. Withthe history I know, before you ever started training, there is a financial component to the severing of ties.